FACTS:

The case involves the motion for reconsideration filed by Raul M. Gonzales, who was suspended from the practice of law in October 1988. Gonzales filed the motion more than four years later, requesting the lifting of his suspension. In support of his motion, Gonzales stated that he provided free legal aid services to the poor and needy through other lawyers, engaged in civic work during the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, and participated in an international conference where he delivered a paper commended by a US Supreme Court Justice. He also emphasized his long record in promoting human rights and the rule of law, especially during the martial law years. Gonzales expressed regret for any inconvenience caused to the Court and its members and reiterated his respect for the institution of the Supreme Court. The Court ordered petitioner Zaldivar to file a comment, but no comment was received within the prescribed period. The Chief Justice suggested that the Court should consider Gonzales' motion with leniency, recognizing that the Court seeks justice rather than vengeance. The Court found Gonzales' contrition evident in his motion, and his remorse overshadowed his earlier disrespect and misconduct. Acknowledging that Gonzales had already served a sufficient period of suspension to amend his ways and prove his worthiness to practice law again, the Court granted his motion and lifted his suspension. However, the Court reminded Gonzales of the conditions attached to the privilege to practice law and the need for attorneys to adhere to strict standards of mental fitness, maintain high moral character, and comply faithfully with the legal profession's rules. The Court emphasized its authority to discipline its members and the necessity of maintaining respect and fidelity to the Court for the proper administration of justice.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the suspension from the practice of law of respondent Raul M. Gonzales should be lifted.

2. Whether or not respondent Raul M. Gonzales has shown sufficient remorse and rehabilitation to warrant the lifting of his suspension.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court granted the motion for reconsideration and lifted the suspension of respondent Raul M. Gonzales from the practice of law. The Court believed that the more than four years of suspension had given him enough time and opportunity to amend his ways, rehabilitate himself, and prove himself worthy to enjoy the privileges of being a member of the Bar.

PRINCIPLES:

• The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions such as adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality, and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession.

• The Supreme Court has the authority and duty to discipline its members and has ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys.

• Respect and fidelity to the Court is demanded of its members for the maintenance of its supreme importance.